| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
| Cc: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Support for Slony 2.0? |
| Date: | 2011-01-20 19:15:46 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinjfHxUaQqwTRQKLWGeLBDN_bv0vZM6dhqZCOhC@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
Why don't we have a wizard-type facility to generate a Slonik script,
rather than calling the "bare-metal" functions ourselves? That could
potentially be much more useful. The reason that the existing
facilities are a bit of a chore to use when you get past a couple of
nodes is that paths and listens have to be individually managed, and
the number involved increases quadratically with respect to the number
of nodes. In other words, it's a GUI analogue of writing a Slonik
script, as opposed to a higher level facility that usefully abstracts
details away.
I could imagine this really helping with complicated Slony setups
involving daisy-chaining.
--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2011-01-20 20:39:47 | Re: Support for Slony 2.0? |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2011-01-20 19:03:51 | Re: Support for Slony 2.0? |